I like this argument order better, because it shows how (a -> m b) gets
lifted into (m a -> m b). If we only get one word, and we have to choose
between naming (>>=) and (=<<), I'd choose the latter for this reason.
I don't care what the name is, but having an alphabetic name for most
operators would be nice. Haskell's custom operators are a turn-off for
several people I know. I don't think Haskell the language should push
operators onto people that don't want to use them. Nor should the burden be
on them to create an alias.
-----
If I could go back and redesign Haskell, I'd make it so that operators
could only be defined as synonyms of alphabetically-named functions.
infixl 6 (+) = plus
-- Dan Burton
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Felipe Lessa
On 11-12-2014 10:38, Henning Thielemann wrote:
Thus it is generally a good idea to indent with a fixed size, instead of indenting according to function names.
I agree and that's what I do. However, Chris and Oliver indented their examples by 5 spaces, which is pretty odd (pun intended), so I imagine they prefer otherwise and I've listed that as a possible disadvantage.
Cheers, :)
-- Felipe.
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries